Joe Fontana

[Highways, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should know, tolls and highways are in the provincial jurisdiction. While the member has been going across Atlantic Canada suggesting the Reform Party is against tolls, perhaps he should check with his boss, who in New York City on May 25 indicated he is in favour of tolls and user fees for public infrastructure.

[Railway Safety Act, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to the report of the Railway Safety Act review committee.

[Highways, June 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, once again to educate the Reform Party, highways are under provincial jurisdiction. To toll a highway is the responsibility of the provincial government. Not to toll a highway is the responsibility of the provincial government. Surely the Reform Party, which calls for more autonomy for the provinces, would not want this federal government to intrude on provincial jurisdiction.

[Highways, June 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the government and the Minister of Transport have answered this question time and time again.

Highways are under provincial jurisdiction. It is up to the provincial minister of transport to determine the priorities of where he wants to put those highway funds. This government obliges what the province asks for and that is what we have essentially done.

[Air-India Disaster, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate but as usual this member has it all wrong and misrepresents the facts.

The proposed marine terminal at Belledune represents an unprecedented partnership between federal, provincial and various municipal governments. All three levels of government working in concert will be putting funds into this project.

If the member were concerned about the future of marine transportation in Atlantic Canada, she would be supporting this unique collaboration. It is interesting to note the following comments from Paul Doiron, general manager of Logistec Stevedoring that operates the Rodney terminal. He said he did not expect that development of the terminal of Belledune on the north shore would offer threatening competition to Logistec.

He then said that Forterm operates the largest forest products terminal on the eastern seaboard and is in the top eight or nine forest products terminals in the world. That will not change. "We will be able to compete just as we have for over 16 years," he said.

It is sad to note that the member wants to deny the people in this region the right to seek a loan from the federal government when she had no trouble supporting a request that the federal government write off a loan for the port of Saint John.

I would be interested to discover whether the hon. member opposite during her reign as mayor ever gave the port of Saint John money toward its operations. Perhaps if she had, the port would not be in this fix today.

It seems that I have to remind the former mayor that members should be reminded that Belledune and Saint John are in the same province and that the entire province will benefit from the increased economic activity.

The mayors and people of the municipalities surrounding Belledune are putting their money up front to support their region and the entire marine industry. They should be applauded, not hindered, and this member should be supporting New Brunswick, not voting against it.

[Old Age Security Act, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this government's objectives are to put CN on a viable footing so that it maintains competitiveness with other carriers and to maximize the value of the sale of CN's shares to Canadian taxpayers.

To achieve maximum value the broadest possible distribution of shares is necessary. The initial public offering of CN will be the largest such issue in Canadian history. The Canadian equity market may not be large enough on its own to absorb such an issue of this size.

To ensure the divestiture of all the government's equity in CN at maximum value, markets outside of Canada will need to be assessed. The United States in particular will be an important market. Its numerous investors are familiar with the rail renewal and revitalization which Canadian railways and CN in particular are undertaking. Foreign ownership restrictions could jeopardize the participation of these investors.

Canadian rail policy does not restrict or prohibit foreign ownership. More than 30 per cent of CP's limited shares are owned abroad. By not limiting foreign ownership for CN it ensures a level playing field between both CN and CP in their ability to raise equity capital in global financial markets.

The government's financial advisers agree that a foreign ownership limit could reduce the potential size of the issue and would reduce the price. Limits could also prevent the government from selling the majority stake. Given the size of the share offering, a successful issue would be endangered if the potential shareholder base was limited to Canada.

While shareholder investment thresholds under the Competition Act and Investment Canada Act could conceivably have provided sufficient safeguards against an unwanted foreign takeover, the proposed 15 per cent limit on individual share ownership also acts as an effective constraint on foreign control. Past experience with Canadian initial public offerings indicates that foreign sales are unlikely to approach, let alone exceed, 50 per cent.

[Cn Commercialization Act, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-89 is a very important bill to the railway industry and for the future of transportation in the country. I appreciate the number of members who have spoken and the vast number of questions which will be answered in due course in the committee hearings to commence tomorrow.

I want to extend appreciation to the opposition parties, the official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party, for their support in principle of the bill. I understand it is conditional support at this point in time and that we will endeavour to answer their questions at committee. I should point out that the NDP continues to be in a time warp. It believes the government must own and operate everything to ensure that it is run efficiently. Most members have indicated that we have a tremendous opportunity to create a new CN with greater efficiencies.

I highlight two questions that have been posed to the government. The first concerns no restrictions to foreign investment. The Canadian taxpayer has helped to build Canadian National and the Canadian taxpayer deserves to get the maximum benefit for that investment. Therefore the experts have indicated to us that to ensure the maximum benefit, one cannot impose certain restrictions on the share offering to try to get the best possible value for Canadian National.

Second, we have put a restriction on individual shareholdings to a maximum of 15 per cent. A number of opposition members have indicated that certain unaffiliated or unrelated companies could band together to essentially take over Canadian National. I want to say with regard to that concern that the experts have told us it is impossible. The reason we have drafted the bill with

such detail is to ensure that unrelated companies and individuals could not band together to essentially have control of Canadian National.

I want to make two other points. The Minister of Transport indicated this morning that regulatory reform would be coming up soon. It is as important as CN's privatization to ensure that we have an efficient railway transportation system.

We all agree that transportation is key to our competitiveness, to creating jobs and to exporting. That is why we want to create a national, affordable integrated railway system in the country that will allow us to be able to move goods and people as efficiently and as effectively as we possibly can, and to ensure that those jobs remain in the country and that we continue to export.

Bill C-89 is going to committee and when it comes back I am sure we can look forward to the support of all members of the House.

[Unemployment Insurance, May 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, we would agree with the hon. member that the situation of young people in Canada is an issue that concerns us all. However, we believe it is incorrect to assume that most people who leave UI will go on welfare.

Employment gains in 1994 reduced new UI claims by some 10 per cent from 1993 and helped over 200,000 more people get off UI without exhausting their benefits. Data for March shows that the unemployment rate for Canadian workers 15 to 24 years of age has decreased by 2.4 per cent since the government came into power. While that is still not an acceptable figure, we intend to continue to work on the situation.

We are committed to stimulating the creation of employment opportunities for youth and taking concrete action. Summer employment programs have been redesigned to reinforce programs that provide the best results in job creation. The student summer job action program, a package of six job creation elements that will target the needs of post-secondary and senior high school students, will result in the creation of 44,500 summer jobs. The continuation of the youth internship program funding has been increased to $118 million from the 1994 funding of $25 million. We intend to continue Youth Service Canada, with an expected 17,500 participants over three years. The funding has increased to $28 million from $25 million. In addition, we are creating new funding of $15 million for Youth Service Canada. Overall, funds for youth programs and services for 1995-96 have increased by $43 million.

In Quebec, HRD is opening six Canada Employment Centres for students on Montreal Island. Approximately 50 students will be working in six Canada Employment Centres and approximately 7,000 jobs will be posted.

Jobs are what Canadian youth needs and jobs are what this government is creating for them.

[Grandparent Year Act, May 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Transport has stated repeatedly and clearly, although maybe not for some, highways are a provincial responsibility. However, the federal government has a longstanding practice of entering into cost sharing agreements to provide some level of service.

Multi-year programs are often developed with a tentative list of projects referenced in the initial agreement. There are myriad reasons why the project lists attached to various highway agreements change over the life of the agreement.

We cannot forecast what may happen as individual projects mature. There may be delays due to design problems, completing the environmental assessment, changes in provincial priorities or cost changes. Virtually all highway agreements administered by the federal government change during the course of a year.

The project list attached to the Nova Scotia agreement was developed in early 1993 as part of an initiative to provide a stimulus to spur economic growth and job creation.

It is worth noting that several provinces are either investigating the option or have implemented public-private partnerships as a means of advancing projects comparable to the highway 104 project.

To answer the question of the member with respect to tolls, the reality is that the province of Nova Scotia requested a change to reallocate some, not all, of the funds to include an allocation for the Fleur-de-lis Trail.

There are actually two Nova Scotia highway programs. Between them approximately $215 million is allocated to route 104, not an insignificant amount. Route 104 has received a tremendous contribution.

Two minutes does not allow me time to rebut every aspect of the allegations made by the member opposite. It is important to use the time to set forth the basic facts so that the lack of substance to the allegations can be seen for what it is: mere opportunism.

To be perfectly clear, there are always discussions with the provinces on transportation issues and project substitutions do occur. The member must understand that the provinces spend the money and decide on the priority of projects.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure on careful reflection of the blues the use of such words as "corruption" are unparliamentary. I think the member ought to apologize now. If he does not have the guts to do that, he should step outside and use those words-